The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Sectio Aurea]

"Everyone either loves themselves, or loves God. Those who love themselves will have themselves as company forever. Those who love God will have God as company forever."

What! only two options?

Elio, your reasoning (with respect to your statement above) demontrates and reinforces the typical negative Christian stereotype of debasing family values.

 

[lupusFati]

If you hate Christ you hate me.

Have it your way, then.

 

[quatona]

If you hate Christ you hate me.

Irrelevant for what´s been discussed and pompous, on top.

 

[lupusFati]

Irrelevant for what´s been discussed and pompous, on top.

This is why I try not to let my emotions rule me anymore. I don't kill them, sure, but when discussing things such as this it's best not to become too attached to it. I think overall I'm a better person for it.

 

[JGG]

If you hate Christ you hate me.

You're Christ?!

 

[lupusFati]

You're Christ?!

I guess it does make it seem that way, huh? I think he meant that it's the same as insulting a friend you really care for. I know if someone insulted one of my friends I would personally feel as if I'd been attacked.

I still find the statement to be a bit over the top in this case, however.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you hate Christ you hate me.

Your tribalism is gratuitous.

But I don't hate either you or your mythical Christ.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

That was my main point. You presume, believe, trust that one day science will give us an answer regarding what caused the universe to come into existence based on what science has given us thus far.

This is what is called methodological naturalism which falls under philosophical naturalism.

But it is my contention that metaphysical naturalism is demonstrably fallacious and self defeating. I can also defend my position if you would like to debate me on it.

Yes, please. Use the internet - a world-wide network of fantastically complex products of science and technology - to show us how science is baseless. That should be fun.

 

[KCfromNC]

Isn´t it funny how you insist on being presented arguments by affirmative atheists, and once you are presented them you reject to consider them because...the guy making them is an affirmative atheist?

Cognitive dissonance in action is a wonder to behold.

 

[KCfromNC]

Surely you will say:

"Well I hate Odin, does that mean Odin exists?"

Hands up - has any atheist actually said this? Let's test just how far we can trust confident assertions from this particular poster.

 

[Cearbhall]

Irrelevant for what´s been discussed and pompous, on top.

Very pompous. Claiming that you're a victim of hatred because there are people who don't share your religion...

Hands up - has any atheist actually said this? Let's test just how far we can trust confident assertions from this particular poster.

Elioenai has a habit of attributing theist logic to atheists and then shooting it down, thereby hurting his own stance. It's one of the strangest forms of straw men that I've ever seen.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Actually, everything is about whether or not men and women are going to live righteously or unrighteously in this life.

Everything? Is this your view of everything?

Are you judging everyone oh pious one?

Actually Elio, how others behave is none of your (or your imaginary friends)business.

Find some authentic meaning in your life and focus on your correcting your own ego first.

 

[Akiba021]

...In six days.. This thread will be one year old, and you guys are still posting in it.. o.o

 

[Davian]

...In six days.. This thread will be one year old, and you guys are still posting in it.. o.o

Your point?

 

[Davian]

Ignoring that last bit of gibberish you posted, let's try this again.

Is someone else posting using your account?

Logical positivism is dead.

What more can I say?

You said, "I have already demonstrated to you why ignosticism, theological non-congnitivism is self defeating and has been abandoned"

You have been corrected on this in the past - this is not positivism. This is post-positivism. Are you unclear on difference?

If it was abandoned by the philosophic community and openly repudiated by one of its most vocal proponents after he realized it was self-defeating, why do you keep asking me to provide a positive ontology?

Because they are not the same things.

A positive ontology produces facts, something we can work with.

Telling us what it isn't gets us nowhere.

Note that I also expect that you incorporate the concept of falsifiability into any of your hypotheses.

That would be a waste of time for me.

So what is the point of this debate with Paradoxum?

 

[Elioenai26]

So what is the point of this debate with Paradoxum?

The point is that she is not you.

That is the point.

Although I do wish with every ounce of my being that you would agree to debate me.

I would even be willing to debate you on the merits (or lack thereof) of post positivism and show you why it is absurd.

But surely you will reply with some bit about me being a liar or this or that and how you would not stoop to debate me because it would be a waste of time blah blah blah...

So I for the time being, shall just ignore you until you are ready to defend your views in a structured format.

Which means you do not have to waste your time and reply to this post. I will not be answering unless it is to accept an invitation to debate you.

Talk less Davian, Say more, Hate Less, Love more

 

[Cearbhall]

So I for the time being, shall just ignore you until you are ready to defend your views in a structured format.

If his posts don't seem structured, it's because he has to spend half his time pointing out your contradictions and lies about your previous statements.

The most sublime question anyone could ever ask is: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Begin there...

To establish a premise that would lead to that question, one would first have to ask "Is there a 'why?'" And "What evidence is there to suggest that there is or isn't a 'why?'"

 

[Elioenai26]

If his posts don't seem structured, it's because he has to spend half his time pointing out your contradictions and lies about your previous statements.

Then we can settle the issue and debate.

If I contradict myself in the debate or lie, I lose the debate. Simple.

But he will not debate me.

Will you?

 

[Elioenai26]

If his posts don't seem structured, it's because he has to spend half his time pointing out your contradictions and lies about your previous statements.

To establish a premise that would lead to that question, one would first have to ask "Is there a 'why?'" And "What evidence is there to suggest that there is or isn't a 'why?'"

The greatest minds ever to have lived have been concerned with the question. I am simply repeating the sentiment.

And no I am not going to establish a premise that would lead to that question. That would be quite a waste of time.

If a person is not concerned with why they exist that is fine. They can walk around with their eyes closed all day if they like. That is their choice.

 

[Cearbhall]

If I contradict myself in the debate or lie, I lose the debate. Simple.

But he will not debate me.

Will you?

Then you've already lost.

I was under the impression that we were already debating.